Commercial dry cleaning systems currently employ potentially toxic and environmentally harmful halocarbon solvents, such as perchloroethylene. Carbon dioxide has been proposed as an alternative to such systems in U.S. Pat. No. 4,012,194 to Maffei. A problem with carbon dioxide is, however, its lower solvent power relative to ordinary solvents.
PCT Application WO 97/16264 by The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill describes cleaning systems that employ liquid or supercritical carbon dioxide in combination with a surfactant that contains a "CO.sub.2 -philic" group. The term "CO.sub.2 -philic" was first coined in conjunction with such surfactants by J. DeSimone and colleagues. See, e.g., J. DeSimone et al., Science 265, 356-359 (Jul. 15, 1994).
PCT Application WO96/27704 (Sep. 12, 1996) by Unilever, describes dry cleaning systems using densified carbon dioxide and special surfactant adjuncts. The surfactants employed have a CO.sub.2 -philic moiety connected to a CO.sub.2 -phobic moiety. See also U.S. Pat. No. 5,683,473 to Jureller et al; U.S. Pat. No. 5,683,977 to Jureller et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 5,676,705 to Jureller et al.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,377,705 to Smith et al. describes a precision cleaning system in which a work piece is cleaned with a mixture of CO.sub.2 and a co-solvent. Smith provides an entirely non-aqueous system, stating: "The system is also designed to replace aqueous or semi-aqueous based cleaning processes to eliminate the problems of moisture damage to parts and water disposal" (col. 4 line 68 to col. 5 line 3). Co-solvents that are listed include acetone and ISOPAR.TM. M (col. 8, lines 19-24). Use in dry cleaning is neither suggested nor disclosed. Indeed, since some water must be present in dry-cleaning, such use is contrary to this system.
In view of the foregoing, there is a continuing need for effective carbon dioxide-based cleaning systems.